It's just the contrast that makes him look so good. In other words, he isn't bat s@&/ crazy.

He's not wrong. I'm not enthralled with the man. For me to get excited about a GOP candidate, we'd need the likes of a Powell or a Weld. Huntsman, akaik is legitimately pro-life and though that's not a deal-breaker for me, it certainly indicates that Huntsman isn't my "ideal" candidate.

The thing is, though, Huntsman is less crazy. And for the viability of our electoral system, we need a non-crazy candidate from the GOP. I don't care if Obama could swat down Perry like a fly--if Perry gets nominated, it'll only be confirmation to the troglodytes that their way works and their way is mainstream (which it is not, and even if it were, it shouldn't be). Huntsman talks about gaining Democrat and Independent support--he recognizes the U.S.A. is composed of more than just right-wing conservatives. We need that in a nominee, and we desperately need that in the general election political dialogue.

I'd almost take the opposite view. Even if Huntsman were nominated, it's likely he would tack pretty hard to the right to shore up his base, just as McCain did before him. I'd imagine the likely result of that is further feeling by the most conservative fringe that their way had been working, but that they only failed because they did not nominate a true believer. Instead, it may be better to let the current radicalization run its course. If a far right candidate like Perry or Bachmann is nominated, and defeated decisively in the general election, the party may finally take a hard look at changing its direction.

Apparently Republicans don't believe scientists when it comes to global warming or evolution, but they do when it comes to [link=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/26/virginia-prepares-hurricane-irene/]hurricanes[/link]? Very interesting.

[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=2&src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp]Republicans against science by Paul Krugman[/link]

I'd almost take the opposite view. Even if Huntsman were nominated, it's likely he would tack pretty hard to the right to shore up his base, just as McCain did before him. I'd imagine the likely result of that is further feeling by the most conservative fringe that their way had been working, but that they only failed because they did not nominate a true believer. Instead, it may be better to let the current radicalization run its course. If a far right candidate like Perry or Bachmann is nominated, and defeated decisively in the general election, the party may finally take a hard look at changing its direction.

The problem with that idea that of course is what if they actually win somehow? Are we willing to risk that? I'm not.

"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending." --Michele Bachmann, taking crazy up just one more notch

I would think (hope) that even her target religious audience finds that sort of thing offensive. As off the wall as it is, at least when people like Pat Robertson attributes natural disaster to divine punishments, he's doing so based on things that most people concede that at least some major branches of the religion on question teaches are immoral (eg homosexuality, prostitution, gambling). She, on the other hand, is describing a debate about fractional differences in the total funding of the federal government. Really? It seems inescapably trivializing to say that bad things happen on Earth because 10 year projections use a CBO-developed macroeconomic projection model instead of a Heritage Foundation one.

Today I listened to parts of the Rush Limabugh show, Dick Cheney was hocking his book. Rush basically gave what I could call metaphorical oral sex over the radio. He called him a "Great Man" in the historical context we might use to describe a great leader of history no less than twice. He listed off his resume and I LOL when he listed his tenue as CEO of Halliburton as a postive.

Basically this interview(and apparenty Cheney's book) was a recap of how torture was a good thing and, Iraq was a good thing, Libby was a good thing, everything Cheney did was a good thing. Rush asked him what his proudest moments were and Cheney listed the implementation of 'enhanced interrogation' as one of them. He was also ok with no WMD being found because Saddam had the ability to start a program of WMD creation if he wanted to. I guess if that makes it ok we have many countries left that need invading.

Cheney did not endorse a particular candidate for the elections but said someone would get the GOP nomination and therefore be the one to vote for over Obama.

The complete disregard for anything intellectual in the GOP at this point is beyond frightening.

Take Jon Stewart's highlights of [link=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/moment-of-zen---ignoramus]Gretchen Carlson[/link] having to Google words like "czar" and "ignoramus". Or O'Reilly Keynes [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKLOOHmaI7U&feature=related]having to play dumb when it comes to Keynes[/link]. Or a staffer saying that [link=http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/politico_asks_an_impolite_ques.html\]topics like John Locke[/link] are irrelevant to Rick Perry unless it's a need-to-know issue.

Considering I'm a recent graduate that has only obtained a BA, has been in the work force for under a year, and holds a degree from a fairly good school (but not one of the best), and I have studied Keynes, knew the (correct) definition of czar and ignoramus, and can have a length conversation about Locke, yet don't feel anywhere near qualified to hold public office, it's amazing that people don't care if the person they want to be president can meet these simple qualifications. Hell, I knew the basic concept of Keynesian economics before I ever took an econ course (and how to pronounce it)....

For the love of all that is holy, STOP PLAYING MR. NICE GUY!
He might as well just lay down in the front entrance of Congress with a shirt that says "Welcome" and let Congress (Democrats too!) step on him as they enter.

There is trying to be a uniter. And then there is being a doormat. I really can't figure out why he's STILL playing nice. It's done nothing for approval ratings and the country is far from better off because of it. In fact, it has lowered the respect Americans have for him with each inch he gives. It would be one thing if the GOP gave in on... anything whatsoever. But that's not the case. He's let the inmates run the asylum long enough. Americans (particularly those of us who have some sanity left), would respect him a hell of a lot more if he would simply tell them to shove it! He may be running for election, but until those votes are cast, counted and the winner is sworn in, he is still the President of the United States. And if he wishes to make an address, he makes the address. It's not can or may. It's "Yes sir Mr.President!" He is the most powerful man in the country and it is high time he reminded people of that fact.

Instead, he's going to play nice with Boehner and tick off all the NFL fans if their feed is interrupted.

Someone send the man a copy of West Wing DVDs with Jed Bartlet's greatest hits.